Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Defending monosexuals (was: YAEPT: uu/ii )

From:Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2008, 8:14
That email was more or less tongue-in-cheek. I thought it was quite a nifty
(hence my categorising it as "funny") way of Mark's to encompass both homo-
and heterosexuals with the word, punning on "bi-". In fact, I hadn't known
that hermaphrodites were once called "bisexuals". No offence/ignorance meant
-- apologies.
Of course, we also vaguely know why "bisexual" won out over
"amphoterosexual" ultimately, given the number of syllables in each and the
general laziness of humans.


On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:20 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

> Eugene Oh wrote: > >> "Monosexuals" is a funny word! >> > > I do not see why "monosexual" is any more or less funny than "bisexual". > The latter was, when I was young, and adjective meaning 'having both male & > female sex organs', i.e. hermaphrodite. Over the last half century the word > has shifted to mean 'attracted sexually to both sexes.' > > On the analogy of homosexual & heterosexual one would've expected > 'attracted sexually to both sexes' to be *amphoterosexual, but it ain't; and > shifts in meaning happen all the time in living languages, > > The imaginative boundaries for that are >> practically non-existent. >> > No more, meseems, that for 'bisexual' if one wants to be imaginative. > > Is a monosexual someone who... >> >> (a) Has only one sex as opposed to the rest of the world, which has two or >> more? >> > > ?? Surely most people in this world have only one sex, either male or > female. Hermaphrodites, i.e. bisexuals in the older meaning, are a minority. > Most of us on this list, I guess, are monosexual, i.e. have only one sex, as > opposed to bisexual in the sense of 'having both male & female sex organs'. > > (b) Has sex once? >> > > Yeah, yeah - kinda like a bisexual has sex only twice! > > [snip] > >> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote: >>> >>>> I found that a tad offensive... but maybe it's just me. >>>> >>> I'm sure Roger meant nothing by it, but yeah, one reads an implication >>> that bisexuals are somehow more likely than monosexuals to carry >>> viruses. Which is indeed an offensive assertion... >>> >> > Surely Mark's coinage of monosexual is quite logical in view of the > contemporary meaning of 'bisexual'. It's also IMO very neat as it > encompasses both heterosexual and homosexuals. > > FWIW my original remarks about bi and bii were simply making fun of the not > uncommon pseudo-Latin plurals of _virus_, thus: > bus ~ bi, on the analogy of virus ~ viri > bus ~ bii, on the analogy of virus ~ virii > > -- > Ray > ================================== > > ================================== > Frustra fit per plura quod potest > fieri per pauciora. > [William of Ockham] >


Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
R A Brown <ray@...>Defending monosexuals